Ex Parte Bright et al - Page 14



                 Appeal No. 2005-2338                                                                                 
                 Application No. 09/754,001                                                                           

                        Finally we consider the rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                          
                 Appellants argue on page 11 of the brief that:                                                       
                        [c]laims 5, 14, and 21 are further patentable over Teper and Strandberg,                      
                        because both failed to teach or suggest the required limitation of “said                      
                        facilitating comprises sending an email with a uniform resource locator                       
                        (URL) of the online service provider to the email address.”  The limitation                   
                        does not merely recite sending either an email or a URL.  Instead the                         
                        limitation clearly recites require [sic] ‘the transmission of an email with the               
                        URL of the service provider to make possible roaming (“said facilitating                      
                        comprises”)”                                                                                  
                               Col. 9, lines 38-46 of Teper may have disclosed URL of a service                       
                        provider but col. 9, lines 55-57 of Teper merely disclosed “emailing the                      
                        billing statement” to the subscriber.  There is no teaching in either                         
                        reference of “emailing the URL of the service provider.”  In particular, there                
                        is no teaching in either reference on “emailing the URL of the service                        
                        provider” to enable roaming by the subscriber.                                                

                        Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 21.                        
                 As discussed supra, we reverse the examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 14                           
                 because of limitations directed to a request for roaming capability, however we                      
                 do not find that claim 21 contains such a limitation. Claim 21 is dependent upon                     
                 claim 18 and contains the limitation of sending an email with a uniform resource                     
                 locator (URL), Internet address, of the online service provider.3  Further, we note                  
                 that the examiner identifies, on page 8 of the brief, that Strandberg, not Teper,                    





                                                                                                                     
                 3  We note that claim 21 is dependent upon claim 18.  Claim 18 does not include                      
                 a limitation directed to roaming nor does it provide antecedent support for claim                    
                 21’s recitation of “the e-mail address.”  However, claim 19 does contain a                           
                 limitation directed to roaming and provides antecedent basis for “the e-mail                         
                 address.”                                                                                            
                                                         14                                                           



Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007